1. WHETHER A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AND MAGISTRATE CONDUCTING A 28 U.S.C. § 1915 IFP SCREENING ACTS ON AN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND BEYOND THE LIMITS OF LAW IF THEY INCORRECTLY AND UNFAIRLY MISCONSTRUE AND MISREPRESENT THE INDIGENT PRO-SE LAY PERSON'S PLAIN, ORDINARY AND CLEAR STATEMENTS AND LANGUAGE IN THE PLEADING OF A CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT AND IN SUCH A MANNER THAT CAUSES MISSTATEMENTS AND MISINTERPRETATION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S ACTUAL STATEMENTS AND THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH IN THE INITIAL COMPLAINT PLEADING AND IN ORDER TO UNFAIRLY DENY THE INDIGENT PRO-SE PLAINTIFF'S ICFP APPLICATION AT THE INITIAL SCREENING STAGE ON GROUNDS THAT THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM, THE CLAIM IS FRIVOLOUS OR SEEKS DAMAGES FROM IMMUNE DEFENDANTS; BUT THAT ARE BASED ON CLEAR OBJECTIVELY APPARENT MISREPRESENTATIONS AND MISSTATEMENTS OF THE MATERIAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH IN THE ACTUAL COMPLAINT PLEADING?

IF THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION 1. IS YES THEN,

2. WHETHER, SUCH CONDITIONS, IF THEY EXIST IN THIS CASE AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, (I.E. A DISTRICT COURT'S INCORRECT AND UNFAIR DENIAL OF IFP APPLICATION AND DISMISSAL OF AN INDIGENT, PRO-SE, LAY PERSON'S CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION ON THE PRETEXTS THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM, THE CLAIM IS FRIVOLOUS OR SEEKS DAMAGES FROM IMMUNE DEFENDANT, BUT THAT ARE BASED ON OBJECTIVELY APPARENT MISREPRESENTATIONS AND MISSTATEMENTS OF THE ACTUAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND LANGUAGE SET FORTH IN THE COMPLAINT PLEADING), WOULD EQUATE TO AND BE TANTAMOUNT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO ACCESS JUSTICE AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE III OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT'S AODND SPECIALLY IF AFTER A FAIR IMPARTIAL AND COMPLETE READING OF THE PLEADING, IN A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PRO-SE PLAINTIFF, AND ACCEPTING ALL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE, IT IS OBJECTIVELY APPARENT THAT THE INDIGENT PRO-SE PLAINTIFF HAS FAIRLY PLEAD SUFFICIENT FACTS TO STATE VALID COGNIZABLE CLAIMS OF VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS?

3. WHETHER, A DISTRICT COURT (MAGISTRATE OR JUDGE) ACTS IN EXCESS OF ITS DISCRETION AND BEYOND THE LIMITS OF LAW DURING A 28 USC. § 1915 SCREENING OVER THE FACIAL PLEADING OF AN INDIGENT LAY PERSON'S CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT AND IFPR APPLICATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT MAKES FACTUAL FINDINGS ON WHICH IF RELIED TO ENTER DECISIONS TO DENY IFPR APPLICATION AND DISMISS THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION FOR WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY TYPE OF ANSWERS TRIAL EVIDENCIARY HEARING IN ORDER TO ADEQUATELY RESOLVE GENUINE QUESTIONS OF FACTS, BUT RATHER MAKES FINDING OF FACTS BASED ON THAT OBJ

Whether a district court judge and a magistrate conducting a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 IFP screening acted on an excess of discretion and beyond the limits of law if they incorrectly and unfairly misconstrue and misrepresent the indigent pro-se plaintiff's claims, ordinary and clear statements and language in the pleading of a civil rights complaint